I've moved this here so as not to clutter the RFA. My specific concern regarding "too concerned with userboxes" is in his concern over deletion criteria for them, not for edits of, or personal use of, them. IMHO, too much editing time is being dealt with regarding this issue, and Cyde has a signifigant ammount edits in that area. This is to the point where when I placed a note on Improv's Talk Page Cyde was already commenting on it within 1 min, even before Improv got to it. Cyde has not been incivil in these edits that I've seen, but appears to be pushing for a side of the issue more then attempting to form a consensus. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain, and to move this to the talk page as well.

As I see it, the situation is thus: Userbox issues were dividing the community, Cyde took what he felt was an appropriate position to alleviate the issue, ended up getting too involved, and has removed himself. If he removed himself too recently for your trust, that is my error, not his, as I nominated him before the userbox situation was over, and before his removal of himself from any active efforts to resolve according to his views has had time to become fully apparent.

That said, given that a great many Admins and editors have behaved in far worse manner than merely civilly expressing a position when the subject was raised, his actions were quite mild; given that he recognized it was taking too much time and not reducing the issue, and removed himself, shows he can recognize and adjust his behavior in a very timely manner indeed.

There was a recent comment in the en mailing list, which basically stated that if there are not differences of opinion, and those opinions are not voiced, then we'll end up with a tepid, poor encyclopedia. I have the email at home, I couldn't quickly find it on the online archive. This applies as well to policies I believe. Deletion criteria matters; if no one voices an opinion, then how is consensus to be reached? Consensus with no options, no reasoned arguments for and against this and that position? I fail to see how "concern for deletion criteria" translates into not "attempting to form a consensus." Without concern, without voicing different viewpoints, any consensus reached might well be utter crap. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the worst of the Userbox Warriors; but he has expressed unreserved support for the actions of the worst of them (IMO, the worst on either side) in the RFC. Since these divisive actions involve abuse of admin powers as well as persistent incivility and revert warring, this does raise a question of judgment. (I also find Cyde's claim never to have deleted a user-box less than compelling from a non-admin; even presuming he means "never TfD'd", it would take more to persuade me that he fully intends to stop warring.) Septentrionalis 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view: He didn't "war" at all. He expressed an opinion - and yes, he expressed it clearly and it was a fairly strong opinion. He was never uncivil and his goal was to gain a clear policy to remove the divisiveness that the userbox issue was causing. I question your understanding of his actions, frankly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is an opinion which makes me doubtful of his judgment. If he continues to hold such views sanguine frigido in cool deliberation [when this crisis is past], he will act on them. Septentrionalis 18:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would much appreciate a rephrase. The only meaning I can draw from your statement is that if he cold-bloodedly holds a view, he will act on it. Is this actually what your meaning is? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate logic. And yes, KC, that is what sanguine frigido means. Credo illim in mente sana non est. Jim62sch 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. People hold views and opinions all the time without acting on them. --Cyde Weys 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - if that is indeed Pmanderson|Septentrionalis' meaning, I must strongly disagree. It implies no choice, no self-control, no ability to abide by consensus, basically it is an untenable and insupportable position. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words - If you have opinions, you cannot be an admin. --Cymsdale 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pmanderson|Septentrionalis, that is correct. If you have opinions, 1) you will be unable to control yourself from acting on them (much like a small child cannot help urinating on him/herself), and 2) you cannot be an admin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this certainly has become active...It is easy to say Cyde has never deleted a userbox, as only admins can delete, but tagging for CSD by a user implies that you would have hit delete as an admin. The same line of reasoning goes for xFD's where it gets closed out as delete even under alarming consensus. I do support sysops having opinions. I do support Cyde's right to have an opinion on the topic, but feel that too much wikipoliticing has gone on with him and userboxes. If this AfD fails to pass, and Cyde's self-imposed wikibreak on usersboxes continue, I would not argue for oppose next time, even if that was as short as a month from now, but feel that just saying you are on break from something, but not being able to demonstrate it due to time is just not enough. If Cyde had done nothing but put a bunch of userboxes up for TFD, I probally wouldn't have voted on this AfD at all. A userbox polixy will eventually get completed, and hopefully all the admins will comply with it. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, welcome back to the discussion, Xaosflux. No, no one (SFAIK) thinks you feel an admin should not have opinions, that is what the statement Pmanderson|Septentrionalis made seems to mean. A rather absurd position. Insofar as speedy deletes, I see your point, and as I said above, then it is my error for not allowing enough time to pass in order to allow the whole ubox thing to be a past tense. He has stated he will not involve himself; I have never known him to fail to keep his word - and for what its worth, if this nom fails I plan to nom him again in a few months (unless Hall Monitor, Guy, or another contender beats me to the punch) and I expect him to pass easily, as the userbox issue is the only reason given on any of the Oppose votes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, what part of public approval of administrator misconduct is a poor qualification for adminship did you fail to understand? I will of course consider a future nomination on Cyde's behavior in the meanwhile. Septentrionalis 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I think all this about user boxes might be best directed at Wales. Jim62sch 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

concur. What part of agreeing with Jimbo's statement It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time. is public approval of administrator misconduct, I wonder. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man. Cyde's statements on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion far exceed Jimbo's statement. Jimbo seems to have been right in predicting that they would be deleted or moved to user space (probably the latter); and this is a good thing. Cyde, however, has approved draconian measures, which Jimbo deprecates.

I don't like that I was the first oppose vote (citing userbox related edits), and that most of the other opposes are about the userbox issues as well (did not try to start an avalance), but it goes to show that it is a very community oriented issue, and even with Jimbo's statements, and comments such as I don't see how I could be any clearer about this possible paraphrase any Jimbo "Decrees" do seem to have ambiguity to them, and community consensus certainly has not been had, (e.g. large split on the userbox poll). This is also not the place to wage the userbox war, everyone will get worked up about some issue, weater it be wiki sided, or article content, but knowing when to step back and gather consensus is very important to me. I think it's great that Cyde is taking a wikibreak realting to boxen, and perhaps as one "voter" said, if he'd pledge not to deal with boxes administratively they wouldn't oppose; I think that is overkill though, and that we shouldn't have to bring in admins with handcuffs (it's not like pledging to use NPOV, avoiding 3RR, or things that all editors should abide to.) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happier if Cyde would, at some point, evidence principles with which I could be happierunhesitatingly support. I expect he will, which is why I voted "without prejudice to future nominations". I should like to hear more from him, and less from his self-appointed advocate. Septentrionalis 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an RFA candidate arguing in an RFA is really appropriate. You're having your say and people who feel strongly in support of me are having theirs. -- 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, I totally agree that this is not a place to argue with voters, and moved this to talk early in hopes of keeping excess boxen talk off of your rfa (didn't work as well as I'd hoped, but seems to have some), if someone wants you to answer something, they should (and have) post you a new question. You've been rather civil in this rfa, in the face of this tough subject. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]